Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday April 21, 2013 @04:04PM
from the dirty-deeds-dragged-into-view dept.

An anonymous reader writes "What do you get mugged in Central London and the local police are too incompetent to find a mugger even with his address and photograph? You may not be able to get to the laptop, but you still own the photos and data on it, so you set up the NSFW Plumpergeddon blog which gives details of the subsequent 'owner's' 'Brick House Butts' fetishes. Now of course later the IT media might get interested and offer an interview with a promise to let him review the article and keep his name secret. luckily our hero is not so innocent and demonstrates the value of using a false name on the internet as well as planting your own monitoring software on your laptop."

Run it back and forth a couple times in google translate, it improves some:

"What do you want to be incompetent in the center of London and the local police to want to attack an attacker? Find images with name and address of company, you may not be able to get the laptop, but you do not have your own photos and Configure the data on it, if you are using the Plumpergeddon NSFW blog that details the following fetish "owner" Brick House Butts. Well, of course the media later it Join in and have an interview with a promise to investigate them could the item and keep his name secret. Luckily, our hero is not as innocent and shows the advantage of using a false name on the Internet and planting monitoring software on your laptop. "

You know, Philip K. Dick invented a similar game using computers in he's book Galactic Pot-Healer [wikipedia.org] in 1969, well before the Internet, Google or TCP existed. Probably before computer assisted translation was practical.

I don't think its called training really. I mean, what possibly did he learn? The best I can figure, in order for him to have been 'trained' at anything it would have to be some sort of dark matter energy based training as it seems to have worked... and by work I mean left him completely devoid of any and all common sense and intelligence beyond that of a small inbred dog.

I'd give this site less than a year before its finally pawned off to another owner and the domain recycled. The "news" here is days or even weeks old and the owners can't figure out how to ban one persistent comment spammer.

I'm not going to make a "you must be new" here joke, I'm being totally serious: you do realize that Slashdot has been like that for over a decade, right? Old news (but good comments -- it's why we're all here) and trolls that are only addressed with moderation. Dice might kill Slashdot -- they've been mildly annoying so far but they're nowhere near golden-goose-killing yet -- but not the two things you mention.

Police wouldn't pull ATM video or follow-up with the 11 other locations his (also stolen) card were used. This pissed off the victim.

He hasn't tracked the thief, but his laptop regularly sends photos and screenshots while the laptop is in use. This is old news, from a tech perspective.

He posts them on a blog. Much of it is the thief masturbating to porn of grossly overweight women, on sites where he used the victims stolen card to buy memberships.

The thief, unsurprisingly, sucks at life in a number of other ways. He keeps getting banned from eBay. His pathetic dating profile has been posted, etc.

The Register wrote an article full of incorrect information, because the victim declined to reveal his identity and do a real interview. As such, nobody knows his real info. He can continue to operate the shame site.

He has not made any real money running the blog, even with the ads. Less than 100 gbp. This summary stinks of an advertisement to build the viewership and ad revenue generation. I suspect as much because the blog operator isn't vury guud wath tha englishes, either.

He hasn't tracked the thief, but his laptop regularly sends photos and screenshots while the laptop is in use. This is old news, from a tech perspective.

But, in any case, it's not a terribly interesting tech story.

The tech part of the story is that, although the laptop-tracking software technically works without any fault (well almost, but the thiefs stupidly worked around the part that didn't work), it has done nothing on the overall to help the case.Police just ignores him.

This kind of software has always been sold/touted as the ultimate solution for lost and stolen laptops, as the best weapon against thieves.

But ultimately, it doesn't make any difference that the software worked flawlessly.

I my opinion this boils down to the motivation of the various parties involved.For the police, handling the case would require lots of resource (paperwork, permits and warrants, interrogating the suspect, searching his home, more paperwork, etc...) and some risks (usually stolen laptops are resold, so often the people using them aren't the thieves but are thinking they use a legitimately bought 2nd hand latop, so in theory there's a risk of harassing the wrong guy - although in this case, the robbed victim has found a lot of credible arguments, including that the suspect started using the laptop a couple of hours after the mugging [too short for the laptop to be sold as 2nd hand] and using the same asset [porn site access,articles for sale on ebay] that were billed on the stolen bank card during the dozen of hours after the mugging until the bank blocked the card. That's quite a lot of coincidence and would require further police investigation) for a crime which - from their point of view - wasn't really a violent crime (no one got kiled) happens regularily and isn't a high threat to the general population.So they didn't do a lot.

Meanwhile, the bank has quite a lot of money at stake in this case, (7k british pounds), so *they* did take the case seriously, did consider the victim's arguments, did their own internal investigation, and finally decided to reimburse the victim.

He should probably contact the insurance company. Lost laptop cost a lot to the insurance companies, so they would pay more serious attention to the information that the victim has gathered, and have a strong financial incentive to pressure the police to retrieve the stolen goods.

This is the MET, they won't do anything cyber crime related until they get the cyber crime laws they're lobbying for. A very *political* police force the Met, they know how to play the game.

He'll have to do it himself, he could make a citizens arrest, him and a few friends, but the Met won't take kindly to be made to look lazy, so that might be risky. They could always flip that and claim him and his friends mugged the guy.

Difficult one, the police just don't want to do their job and if they won't do their

> This summary stinks of an advertisement to build the viewership and ad revenue generation.

The guy's goal is public shaming, but that doesn't work unless a lot of the public sees the website. So he probably did submit the story here, but it is doubtful that a few banner ads are going to make him any significant amount of money.

Are these cops from San Diego? My wife had a bank call her and the cops that they were HOLDING the thief trying to cash one of her checks he washed. The police said $500 (the amount being fraudulently submitted) wasn't enough to roll a car on a thief the bank guard had handcuffed. In the end, the bank had to threaten to sue the cops to get a response.

Why not? The quality of the summary wouldn't be any different if this had been a known user. No one is hurt if an anonymous coward submits a well written summary that points to an interesting article. The real issue here is the lack of editing prior to posting this entry.

I'll try to translate what I think the article says:1. Man was mugged and lost his laptop.2. Police won't do anything about it.3. He has hidden software on his old laptop that was sending images and data back to him.4. He posted it on the Internet under a fake name5....6. Profit?

Originally Posted by nyquist.
has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Originally Posted by gahnand.
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

Aside from his just "waking up" to find his laptop and wallet gone.... yeah - he was probably at church at the time, and the sermon was dull... I seriously doubt that anyone at The Reg would "offer an interview with a promise to let him review the article and keep his name secret."

Keep his name secret? Possibly, and not that uncommon. Let him review the article? I really, really, really doubt that. No journalist - hell, no J-school student - would be that dumb.

Once you've been interviewed the deed is done. Unless it involves highly technical information - say interviewing a top scientist in specialized field, where there really is a need for detailed discussion - there's no way you'll be asked to "review" anything.

Reviewing the article is the default expectation and offer in anything that resembles an interview for publication.

Yes, those 'shocking slip-of-the-tongue' interviews in Daily Mail have been reviewed and approved for publication by the person being interviewed. 100% (if they actually happened, Daily Mail is a tricky example).

Most reasonably sharp thieves will quickly wipe your HD and install a "fresh" OS on your laptop after they take it from you. Your monitoring software will be gone quickly; though fortunately your data will go with it.

Most reasonably sharp thieves will quickly wipe your HD and install a "fresh" OS on your laptop after they take it from you.

Most reasonably sharp laptop anti-theft products tattoo themselves in the BIOS, or load in the master-boot record, so when you install a "fresh" OS;
that fresh OS install will be modified to include a bootstrap for the anti-theft software; upon first boot, the anti-theft software is quietly and undetectably
reinstalled, and the owner's configuration is reinstated.

Most reasonably sharp thieves will quickly wipe your HD and install a "fresh" OS on your laptop after they take it from you. Your monitoring software will be gone quickly; though fortunately your data will go with it.

The thing is, thieves usually aren't that bright.

Personally if my laptop was stolen I'd be more worried about people getting access to my data. This is why I keep as little personal data as possible on my laptop.

Is anyone else slightly concerned that a thief without the wisdom to re-install the OS could also get into the laptop? Occams Razor would indicate that he had no password on his user account. This tool isn't a hero, he's an idiot for letting his laptop get stolen and a fool for having no passw

I don't think it makes sense to put more value on the hardware than on your personal information. Full system encryption and full system backups are the best approach. If you really want to be a hero, at the very least install your everyday OS to a hidden partition and have a decoy OS on the main partition that the perp will use so you can have your "hilarious blog material". But overall, get over it man, because your laptop is gone. At least the most valuable thing (your information) will not be accessed.

So what are people around here considering reading instead of Slashdot? This indecipherable summary is extremely common around here along with click bait, exaggerated headlines (click bait again), news that's days behind every other tech news site. I'd love to hear some fresh ideas for Slashdot replacements.

It doesn't really matter what the links are, I never click on them. And most of the time I don't even bother reading the summary. I think the next step is that I'm just going to post without even bothering to read any of the comments.

I would be astonished if this is legal (its ethically wrong), as notices normally have to be shown...although are often small; hidden in reality. This opens the doors for people leaving usb pen drives in the street, lending computers to friends...or hell just buying someone a usb camera.

I don't really think we should be taking ethical advice from someone who conflates stealing a computer with being lent a computer, much less being gifted a computer.

Do you work for an american bank or something? Just because you stole it and sold it to your sister doesn't make it actually hers. She isn't entitled to it, she was robbed of the money. Your retarded logic is the same bullshit banks are using to keep houses the fucking stole from people and rapidly resold knowing they were doing it.

And I guess the submitter missed the other story that came out of England a few weeks ago [theregister.co.uk] where the theft victim similarly posted the "thieves" photos all over, only to discover the people he was harassing were innocent.

This is crap. Where I come from, possession of (i.e. buying) stolen goods is a crime. It is almost always obvious that what you are buying is stolen. Laptop with just the power supply on eBay? STOLEN! You deserve the consequences. Owner contacts you? RETURN THE ITEM!

The case of the Iranian family was something of an exception. They are still a bunch of stolen-laptop-buying dirtbags; they just don't deserve the Iranian consequences for that (torture, loss of hands), which is why the guy decided to relent.

How does it protect pawnshops? It gives them a green card to sell stolen goods. The logic is insanely stupid on your part.

In America, we hold pawn dealers responsible for selling obviously stolen goods. We will shut them down and put them in jail for selling stolen goods. We require them to report every thing they buy and in most states, they must hold on to it for several months so it can be claimed as stolen.

And I guess the submitter missed the other story that came out of England a few weeks ago where the theft victim similarly posted the "thieves" photos all over, only to discover the people he was harassing were innocent.

That's not really relevant because in this case the mugger also used the victim's debit card to buy a subscription to the fat chick porn website he's been caught wanking over. There is no question that he's 100% culpable here.

That might well be, but it's pretty clear that the "victim" in all of this has himself broken the law and is liable at bare minimum for libel, if not various other laws.

It's unfortunate the the mugger would get away, but ultimately, the UK has a system of laws and you don't get to break them just because somebody else has broken them first. That would lead to anarchy, oddly enough in the UK.

It's unfortunate the the mugger would get away, but ultimately, the UK has a system of laws and you don't get to break them just because somebody else has broken them first.

A system of arbitrarily enforced laws is anarchy. The blogger can't get the law enforced in the first place.

Besides, this isn't about what's legal, its about what's moral. The mugger is sending the blogger those pictures. He made that decision when he stole the laptop. He's probably not cognizant of that decision, but it is a reasonable assumption that using a stolen computer will result in the webcam sending photos to the rightful owner. After all, the guy did put a piece of tape over the camera for the first 4 weeks.

Didn't we just cover this the other day? In the UK truth is not an absolute defense against libel. It should be, but it isn't. It's pretty clear that the intent behind posting what he's posted was malicious and as such he could very well be liable for that.

Not to mention whatever wiretao laws are in place in the UK.

As for morality. I'm sorry, but this isn't moral. Moral would be referring it to the police and the CC issuer and insurance company and accepting that there isn't anything that can be done. This

It's pretty clear that the intent behind posting what he's posted was malicious and as such he could very well be liable for that.

Could be... but do you think the civil damage to the thief exceeds the thief's civil damage in physically injuring the original owner and making off with his property?

Before he can be liable for his actions, the thief's liability for his actions has to be exhausted too.

As for morality. I'm sorry, but this isn't moral. Moral would be referring it to the police and the CC issuer and insurance company and accepting that there isn't anything that can be done.

Which he did, and they failed to establish justice.

After you have exhausted options that are legal. Morality does not require that all your actions are legal.

Morality would permit you to take further actions to equalize injustice and discourage the mugger's activity.

Vigilantism is just not something which is acceptable in a civilized society.

So-called vigilantism is not what has happened here.

He has not committed any violent act, or attempted to physically restrain, arrest, injure, or kill the mugger in any way.

He has taken advantage of the fact, that his property has been put to a use without his authorization, and used that fact,
to make his property do something he has authorized, but the current illegal possessor does not approve of.

Moral would be referring it to the police and the CC issuer and insurance company and accepting that there isn't anything that can be done.

You have a peculiar definition of morality there. I am not kidding. The law does not define morality. While the law may attempt to codify a certain set of morals, it is well understood that the law is frequently immoral - e.g. "the law is an ass." Look at your own example of libel - if the truth is an absolute defense of against charges of libel then the law is moral in the US and immoral in the UK, if that's not true then the law is immoral in the US and moral in the UK.

Next you'll tell us how the mugger can sue him if the laptop catches fire because he stolen the wrong power brick too.

He isn't going outside the court system. He has infact, informed them, and asked them for help, using the very evidence he is making public.

They didn't care.

You'll have a REALLY hard fucking time putting someone in jail based on evidence they actually took to the police and the police rejected. Any lawyer that isn't still in his mothers womb would tear you a new asshole if you even thought

That's a matter of semantics. He reported it to the police and there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Yes, that sucks, but vigilantism isn't going to solve the problem nor is trying to prosecute with insufficient evidence.

Based upon what I've read they could get him for at most receiving stolen goods and charging a small amount on somebody elses credit card. Most likely it's the British equivalent of a misdemeanor and the so called evidence that he has is unlikely to be admissible in court as the rules

I thought the English were safe from crime, given their disarmed society and their Orwellian surveillance society?

A disarmed society is not a crime-free society. Crime happens, you just don't get killed, that's all. Getting mugged merely means you loose some stuff. No burial. Surprising a burglar merely means you get pushed aside as he runs for it. Mindlessly walking into a bad part of town might mean that you walk out without your wallet - but you still walk out.

Right, but all of those things you have a much higher chance of defending yourself against, can simply run from, and cannot kill so many in such great numbers.

That means that when guns are taken out the equation you're far less likely to be killed.

Yes, yes, if you have a gun you're more likely to be able to stop them, yeah, except they're the ones attacking you, which means they get the jump, they shoot first, or worse, they take the gun off you before you even realise you're being attacked and shoot you with your own gun.

There's simply no escaping the fact that more guns = more deaths as much as NRA propaganda would like to pretend otherwise. I have no problem with the argument from the US that guns are essential to defend liberty or whatever, and that's fine, if you want to make that argument you can. But don't try and parrot the arguments that are blatantly false. You've only got to look at homicide rates to see at very least guns do absolutely nothing to reduce homicide rates, and may well be the cause for increased homicide rates in countries where gun ownership is prolific. Correlation may not be causation, but in a decent sample size (like every country in the world) it's a pretty good indicator and powerful enough to show with a strong degree of confidence that gun ownership most certainly does not decrease homicide rates.

"No taking Guns out of "equation" means that you are much more likely to have violence done to you, often with the same guns you disarmed from law abiding citizens."

There's absolutely no evidence of this, if it were remotely true then in the UK we would have far more gun deaths, and in the US, Mexico and South Africa violent crime would be largely a solved problem and yet they're some of the most violent Westernised countries on Earth.

"Just look at the crime statistics of any major City where they have extremely restrictive gun laws (Washington DC, Chicago, NY etc or the UK, incidents of violent crime are way higher)."

Sure, if you cherry pick outliers you can prove anything. FWIW the UK's violent crime incidents consist almost entirely of alcohol related brawls and football hooliganism, gun crime is such a small component that it's pretty much immeasurable in the stats.

"Guns are a great equalizer. Criminals want easy targets."

Right, and how does a gun make you not an easy target? Do your guns give you magical psychic abilities that let you know when someone is approaching from behind? Are criminals in America special such that they just happen to be the only segment of society that draws slower than everyone else and is less able to pull the trigger when pointing at another human being?

How do you reconcile your NRA sponsored world view with the idea that the leaked gun registry lists a few months back put the owners of those properties of being burgled? Surely all gun owners should have their address and fire arms publicly listed because criminals wont touch houses with guns right because they deter crime? Obviously the MIT cop didn't die to the Boston bombers the other day either as they'd never attack someone like him, a trained firearms user and holder. Oh wait.

Honestly, you don't need to give me the propaganda treatment, I've heard it all before and I'm fully aware of the logical inconsistencies and FUD required to give it at least some semblance of a valid argument as pointed out above. The FUD is tiresome, it makes no sense due to often being contradictory, and has no statistical merit.

Come back when you have some evidence of value for your point rather than hearsay and arguments that can be trivially pointed out as nonsense with only a few seconds of critical thinking.

He lives in England where they practice common law y'know.Where - if I want to change my name - all I have to do is say : My name is now 'Humpert Merrywinkle'. If enough people know me as 'Humpert Merrrywinkle' then I am that person.

And I should know - My passport and my birth certificate contain different names. I never 'legally' changed my name anywhere. Ie: I never submitted a 'name change form'. It just works like that. 'merikans can't seem to figure this out.

While I accept that the mook might possibly have thought his mate was offering him a great deal on the laptop - he should have questioned the credit card that went along with it that has been used to pay for online purchases such as subscriptions to porn sites he accessed. It does make the suspicion that he was the actual mugger reasonable.